Posts
This is the fascist state writ large.
In their raid on Nicky Hager's home ealier last year the police used the chance to trawl for information to frame Hager and were illegally given access to his bank records without so much as a court order.
Now the court finds that hacked computer files are 'property' and Hager may face criminal charges.
In that case we can expect Cameron Slater to face similar charges for stealing hacking computer files as in the case of Matthew Blomfield which is discussed seperately. But no, the government, the police and now (it seems) subservient judiciary are not interested. Slater was acting in the interests of the National Party, and therefore, by extension, the State.
When the judiciary upholds the police in this case, the police go after Nicky Hager but Cameron Slater remains untouched you KNOW that rule of law is just a fig.
Court decision puts Hager back in frame
Ruling
that hacked files used for book are property means charges possible
28
October, 2015
Dirty
Politics author Nicky Hager may face criminal charges
over accepting the hacked material used to write the bombshell book,
according to documents obtained by the Herald.
Police
will not say whether the investigative journalist is again a suspect,
instead of simply a witness, after a pivotal Supreme Court decision
which ruled computer files were property.
Documents
show the new definition from the court puts Hager back in the frame
over the computer files he was given by a hacker which he used as the
basis for his book.
An
Official Information Act response to Hager's lawyers in June saw
police lawyer Carolyn Richardson explain there had been a decision -
apparently just before the journalist's house was searched - to treat
him as an "unco-operative witness as opposed to a suspect".
It was based on legal advice over an earlier Court of Appeal decision
which said computer files weren't property, she said.
But
she said his status could change depending on the Supreme Court's
view of computer files as property. "It may be that the judgment
will have some bearing on whether or not [Hager] has himself
committed an offence as well as Rawshark."
The
letter supports an affidavit from Detective Inspector Dave Lynch,
quoted in submissions from Hager's lawyers in a current court
challenge over a search warrant executed on his home. It described
the lead officer in the Rawshark inquiry as holding the same views,
with Hager's lawyer saying it "suggests Mr Hager may yet be
charged depending on the outcome" of the Supreme Court decision.
Crown
submissions stated Hager was a witness but "had it become
apparent that he had committed an offence, then of course
consideration would have had to have been given to charging him".
Otago
University law professor Andrew Geddis said the Supreme Court
decision was focused on one small part of the Crimes Act. But he said
the logic behind the court's decision would likely "follow
through" to the way the courts handled other parts of the law -
including receiving stolen goods.
"Rawshark
will have obtained property in breach of [the law]. If Rawshark
obtained property it's hard to see those files are not still property
when they get passed on to Mr Hager."
Any
shift in Hager's status as a suspect or a witness could also impact
the decision on his High Court challenge to the search warrant
executed on his home in October 2014. Hager's lawyers had insisted
there was a higher hurdle to get a search warrant against somebody
who was a witness - as Hager was on the day of the search - than for
a suspect.
Hager
was a "suspect" at the time detectives sought bank records
from Westpac without a legal order, police said yesterday.
A
police spokeswoman said the bank could do so under a "letter of
agreement" with the NZ Bankers' Association. There is nothing in
the letter of agreement which deals with the Privacy Act, customers'
information or disclosing personal details to police.
Meanwhile,
Westpac yesterday announced it had changed its internal policy for
handing over customer information to police without a legal order -
but has not said how it has done so.
•
David Fisher gave
evidence as an "expert witness" in the Hager v Police case
under High Court rules that require an "overriding duty to
assist the court impartially on relevant matters".
Nicky Hager demands answers from bank
Journalist
Nicky Hager is putting pressure on Westpac Bank to reveal why it
shared his private account details with the police.
Photo: RNZ
/ Alexander Robertson
27
October, 2015
The
search last October was part of a police investigation into the
hacking of blogger Cameron Slater's computer.
The
information was gathered
by detectives investigating
the hacking of blogger Cameron Slater's computer a year ago. The bank
gave the information without any court order.
Mr
Hager said today he was seeking a "full and frank disclosure"
of the extent of the breach from Westpac.
He
said 10 months of banking transactions from all of his accounts were
handed over to the police without an order.
Over
the weekend, Mr Hager said he still banks with Westpac.
The
legality of a police search of Nicky Hager's house as part of the
investigation into the hacking was challenged in a High Court hearing
earlier this year.
The
court has not yet released its decision.
Related
Here is some previous material on this -
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.